TILTPAT-BIDHAT4 (041308, Morning)
“Things I‘d Like To Post About Today; But I Don’t Have Any Time ‘4‘”:
- In the New York Times Friday — Katie Couric a “virtual lame duck”? Cherish the imagery.
- In the Washington Post Sunday (on Page A06, while putting this near-puffery on Page A01; the New York Times at least had the sense to put the story on Page 1, above the fold; bold is mine) — “‘Bitter’ Is a Hard Pill For Obama to Swallow; He Stands by Sentiment as Clinton Pounces.” Keep digging, guy.
- Best comment yesterday on the presidential candidate I refer to as BOOHOO (Barack O-bomba Overseas Hussein “Obambi” Obama), from “in_awe” at Hot Air (last paragraph): “For all the mocking of George Bush we have endured for the past 7 years, Obama speaking extemporaneously is no better. It is getting tiresome to have his defenders always explaining to us nimrods how nuanced he meant to be, but somehow it all just came out wrong when he said it. Face it: he is a racist, elitist, socialist who views typical white people with contempt. Not great credentials for a Presidential candidate.” I’ll wager that George Bush also knows that Pennsylvania isn’t in the Midwest, where “Mr. Brilliant” Obama placed it.
- Did you know there was a Democratic caucus do-over (ahead-of-time HT to WaPo’s “The Fix” blog) in one Nevada county on Saturday? Obama may have gained one delegate. The reason for the do-over: “Clark County Democrats’ first convention ended in disaster after an unexpectedly big turnout overwhelmed organizers. The Democratic National Committee ordered the county party to try again or face penalties.”
- Objectively Unfit Mitt RomneyCare update: “Costs Soar for Mass. Health Care Law”
Thanks so much for continuing to elevate our national dialogue. We want to select our next President for all the right reasons.
We must assume your “Objectively Unfit” meter was on the fritz when you twice voted for George W. Bush.
Comment by Tony B. — April 13, 2008 @ 10:59 pm
#1, perhaps you can start your own blog and explain why Bush was objectively unfit. Your reasons need to rise to the level of:
- in Romney’s case, willfully violating his state’s constitution and oath of office by unilaterally imposing a court opinion that required a new law to be in place before any enforcement could occur.
- in BOOHOO-OUCH’s case, staying in a church that engages in risible hate speech, hate publishing, and supports at least one terrorist cause, for 20 years.
Good luck. But unless you can bring something even close to the above, don’t expect to be able to bring it in here.
Comment by TBlumer — April 14, 2008 @ 1:04 am
Regarding Bush’s unfitness, I believe waging war by mistake trumps them all, but you could also throw in authorizing torture, illegally eavesdropping on U.S. citizens, running up trillions in debt, and his overall failure to lead and inspire our nation.
You don’t have to take my word for it:
“In an informal survey of 109 professional historians conducted over a three-week period through the History News Network, 98.2 percent assessed the presidency of Mr. Bush to be a failure while 1.8 percent classified it as a success.”
http://hnn.us/articles/48916.html
Comment by Tony B. — April 14, 2008 @ 10:01 am
Your comment is non-responsive. But I’m feeling compassionate today, so I let it through.
You’re not even in the neighborhood of an argument over whether or not he is or was “objectively unfit.”
Arguing about what he has and hasn’t done isn’t relevant to objective unfitness. It appears to have been too much to expect you to understand that.
Comment by TBlumer — April 14, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Ah, but you voted for him twice. Surely, a properly calibrated meter would have detected his unfitness, as manifested by his performance, sometime prior to the ’04 election.
Get that meter fixed and then get a reading on sixth-from-the-bottom-of-the-class John McCain.
Comment by Tony B. — April 14, 2008 @ 1:05 pm
As before —
Your comment is non-responsive. But I’m feeling compassionate today, so I let it through. That has stretched my patience, and permissiveness, to its limit.
Again, you’re not even in the neighborhood of making an argument over whether or not Bush is or was “objectively unfit.”
Arguing about what he has and hasn’t done while in office isn’t relevant to objective unfitness. It is now more clear that it was too much to expect you to understand that.
Comment by TBlumer — April 14, 2008 @ 1:53 pm